Gunman, six others dead at Wisconsin Sikh temple

[PennyQuilts]

Imagine what he would have done if he had an assault rife like in Colorado. Then imagine Colorado if the 100 round magazine hadn't jammed.

I honestly don't think it would have made any more news if the magazine hadn't jammed. At a certain point, the mind just explodes at the horror.

I wish someone at either the temple or the theatre had taken the shooters out. You notice we're not seeing a lot of this carnage at grocery stores, public parks or other places where people can carry - Giffords being the exception and that was by a nut who was completely fixated on her.

[Questor]

One of the Sikhs fought the gunman hand to hand to the bitter end. One of the armed police officers, presumably wearing armor, was snuck up on and shot and sent to the hospital.

Like all the others recently, Wisconsin is a licensed concealed carry and constitutional open carry state.

A nut with a weapon is dangerous no matter where he attacks or what the circumstances are.

[Roadhawg]

I honestly don't think it would have made any more news if the magazine hadn't jammed. At a certain point, the mind just explodes at the horror.

I wish someone at either the temple or the theatre had taken the shooters out. You notice we're not seeing a lot of this carnage at grocery stores, public parks or other places where people can carry - Giffords being the exception and that was by a nut who was completely fixated on her.

You really think people at the Sikh temple should have been carrying? This was a hate crime directed at a certain group of people, who's to say if they were having a picnic in a park it wouldn't have happened there too. I would imagine somebody who's deranged enough to do something like this would want a congregated group of people in a place where maximum damage could be done and not one that's scattered out like in a park or grocery store. I haven't seen too many grocery sackers that were packing. Why is it some peoples answer to madmen opening fire on a crowded group of people is more guns?

[Roadhawg]

Wade Michael Page, who police say fatally shot six people in a Sikh temple in Wisconsin on Sunday, died that day from a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head after he was shot in the stomach by a responding officer, Teresa Carlson, the special agent in charge for the FBI in Milwaukee, said Wednesday.

[kevinpate]

Wade Michael Page, who police say fatally shot six people in a Sikh temple in Wisconsin on Sunday, died that day from a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head after he was shot in the stomach by a responding officer, Teresa Carlson, the special agent in charge for the FBI in Milwaukee, said Wednesday.

So, in the end, it turns out that it was someone carrying a lawfully acquired firearm who ended the shooter's life.
Granted the ender and the beginner were one in the same. A shame the part in the iddle couldn't have been skipped.

[onthestrip]

I honestly don't think it would have made any more news if the magazine hadn't jammed. At a certain point, the mind just explodes at the horror.

So the story would be just the same if the mag didnt jam and he went on to kill 40 instead of 11...? Are freaking serious? We shouldnt have to hope that a gun jams these days, we should make extended clips and drum clips illegal. All they are for is to kill more people more quickly. And I question anybodys judgement that thinks otherwise.

[Roadhawg]

So, in the end, it turns out that it was someone carrying a lawfully acquired firearm who ended the shooter's life.
Granted the ender and the beginner were one in the same. A shame the part in the iddle couldn't have been skipped.

I agree

[kevinpate]

...we should make extended clips and drum clips illegal. All they are for is to kill more people more quickly. And I question anybodys judgement that thinks otherwise.

I disagree they should be illegal. Question away if you must. You are still wrong. Making the items illegal doesn't solve anything. It would simply give a decided advantage to those who do not adhere to the law prohibiting ownership.

[onthestrip]

I disagree they should be illegal. Question away if you must. You are still wrong. Making the items illegal doesn't solve anything. It would simply give a decided advantage to those who do not adhere to the law prohibiting ownership.

Well I now know I wouldnt want your opinion on much. "Making them illegal doesnt solve anything"...? It would certainly help, and it would help more than leaving them legal.

And dont assume that if we make extended clips illegal that it will be so easy for criminals to get them. If no one can make them and it carries harsh punishments if you are found to have them, then they will be very difficult to get. Do you really expect lawful people to carry assault rifles with 100 round clips all the time in the event they run into a Aurora shooter? Get some sense

You know it is ok to give in a little to gun restrictions without "Obama" actually coming to take you normal firearms. You dont have to fight every restriction.

[Swake2]

I disagree they should be illegal. Question away if you must. You are still wrong. Making the items illegal doesn't solve anything. It would simply give a decided advantage to those who do not adhere to the law prohibiting ownership.

The Nazi idiot was much less deadly with just a pistol. How many would he have killed if he had an AR-15 with a 100 round drum? If the items are legal they are easier to obtain. Maybe the Colorado shooter would have been caught trying to obtain what would then be illegal items and would have been stopped without killing anyone if the military type equipment was illegal. The AR-15 and the drum magazine made the killer more deadly and efficient. Those items would never be used in personal defense or hunting so there is no good reason for them to be legal at all.

[PennyQuilts]

You really think people at the Sikh temple should have been carrying? This was a hate crime directed at a certain group of people, who's to say if they were having a picnic in a park it wouldn't have happened there too. I would imagine somebody who's deranged enough to do something like this would want a congregated group of people in a place where maximum damage could be done and not one that's scattered out like in a park or grocery store. I haven't seen too many grocery sackers that were packing. Why is it some peoples answer to madmen opening fire on a crowded group of people is more guns?

I don't think someone should carry where it is illegal. But I can't imagine why carrying a gun in a mosque or a church or the like would be a problem, short of them being a nut who is just as likely to "go off" anywhere. Guns are all over the place. I don't think walking into a church is going to make someone suddenly turn violent (unless they think they could get away with it or were nuts). You can bet your bottom dollar that if someone walked into a place of worship and began harming others, the ones that could would use violence to stop him, if they could - doesn't matter if it was a church. If that means banging them atop the head with a candlestick or one of those smoking teaballs, I'm betting they'd do it.

[PennyQuilts]

So the story would be just the same if the mag didnt jam and he went on to kill 40 instead of 11...? Are freaking serious? We shouldnt have to hope that a gun jams these days, we should make extended clips and drum clips illegal. All they are for is to kill more people more quickly. And I question anybodys judgement that thinks otherwise.

Dude, its not a video game stacking up points. Once you are in the massacre range -in a house of worship, no less -the numbers just blur.

[kevinpate]

... It would certainly help, and it would help more than leaving them legal.

And dont assume that if we make extended clips illegal that it will be so easy for criminals to get them. If no one can make them and it carries harsh punishments if you are found to have them, then they will be very difficult to get. Do you really expect lawful people to carry assault rifles with 100 round clips all the time in the event they run into a Aurora shooter? Get some sense
...

How would it help, beyond a bald assumption by you that it would. We have lots of illegal items, and there is a thriving market for them. Guns, drugs, and any number of other items. It's folly to presume the market dries up and goes away simply because a law gets passed.

That you assume otherwise flies in the face of past experience.

Do I expect folks to carry 100 round clips all the time? nah, that's your strawman hysteria laying out for all to see. Do I think a law abiding citizen who lives in an area of law enforcement poor response time should be limited to a six shooter or a 9-13 shot clip to protect his or her property and life from multiple intruders (each carrying a full clip as well?) Nope, I don't think that makes a whit of sense at all. In fact, I think such a law would be damned irresponsible.

For that matter, if John Q just likes to spend discretionary funds on ammo and firearms instead of cars, and wants to light up his private range, I may not join him,but I think he ought to be able to do so with the same level of freedom my son buys music gear or my other son buys camera gear.

Swake2 also assumes that there is no basis for superior firepower to exist for home defense or hunting. Yet I will suspect if given the choice of a six shooter to face three armed intruders or more firepower, most folks would prefer to not be outgunned in their own hallway.

As for hunting, against a deer, yeah it is overkill. No argument. Against something that can kill ya if you don't put it down, i.e. large boar, mountain lion or even a two legged predator when you're simply out in the woods, I like my position on the matter far better.

[u50254082]

...Those items would never be used in personal defense or hunting so there is no good reason for them to be legal at all.

First of all, thank you for outing yourself as the kind of person who wants to dictate the freedom of others. It's easy to form such strong opinions about something because the media absolutely loves news like this. People have been killing each other for years, using everything from bare hands to nuclear bombs; this is nothing new. If you're hopping on the bandwagon to use these shootings as justification for MORE gun laws, then you're playing into the hysteria like they want you to. Technology, in any form, often carries the risk of misuse, but that's a risk we as a society are willing to accept because we recognize that in the U.S. we have certain freedoms that you simply cannot get anywhere else.

Second, the 2A has absolutely nothing to do with personal defense or hunting -- these are natural rights -- the right expressed in the 2A is one's ability to defend against a tyrannical government. Based on this, there is a very justifiable reason to at least have a fighting shot if you had to go toe-to-toe with the government. If this means having what the media calls "high capacity magazines" (exactly what constitutes "high capacity", anyway?) then so be it.

But keep in mind that criminals, by virtue, do not follow laws. Laws that restrict sales of specific firearms or firearm accessories only impact law-abiding citizens. Criminals will still find ways to cause harm to their victims, and in the absence of, as the media keeps incorrectly putting it, assault rifles with high capacity magazines, they'll find alternative ways such as dirty bombs, IEDs, crossbows, molotov cocktails, you name it.

[HewenttoJared]

You will never have a fighting chance against our government. Someone's probably really excited about that Red Dawn remake...

[onthestrip]

Do I expect folks to carry 100 round clips all the time? nah, that's your strawman hysteria laying out for all to see. Do I think a law abiding citizen who lives in an area of law enforcement poor response time should be limited to a six shooter or a 9-13 shot clip to protect his or her property and life from multiple intruders (each carrying a full clip as well?) Nope, I don't think that makes a whit of sense at all. In fact, I think such a law would be damned irresponsible.

For that matter, if John Q just likes to spend discretionary funds on ammo and firearms instead of cars, and wants to light up his private range, I may not join him,but I think he ought to be able to do so with the same level of freedom my son buys music gear or my other son buys camera gear.

Swake2 also assumes that there is no basis for superior firepower to exist for home defense or hunting. Yet I will suspect if given the choice of a six shooter to face three armed intruders or more firepower, most folks would prefer to not be outgunned in their own hallway.

As for hunting, against a deer, yeah it is overkill. No argument. Against something that can kill ya if you don't put it down, i.e. large boar, mountain lion or even a two legged predator when you're simply out in the woods, I like my position on the matter far better.

How many times is a homeowner faced with 3 armed intruders? Id say its very very rare for the non drug dealing types. Plus, a shotgun and a normal14-16 clip 9mm can provide plenty of firepower. Do you actually keep an AR with 100 rounds in it under your bed? That really isnt the best type of defense in close quarters anyways.

And John Q cant go to the range and rack off 100 rounds at a time? Well, boo hoo. Im sure he can settle with 25 rounds at a time. I mean I would love to go 100mph on the road when I want but society dictates everyones safer that I dont.

And park rangers in Alaska, who might see some of the biggest animals out there, dont carry AR with 100 round clips.

I just dont get it with the gun rights/NRA types. Its like you cant relent just one bit. Im not even mentioning outlawing guns, just large clips. BTW, I happen to have my concealed license, Im not some anti gun liberal.

Also, the being able to fight the govt is the reason I should get to bear all arms argument....well, our military fights with nuclear weapons, MOABS, armor piercing artillery, lasers, drones...Im not sure I have much of a chance with any normal gun.

[Roadhawg]

First of all, thank you for outing yourself as the kind of person who wants to dictate the freedom of others. It's easy to form such strong opinions about something because the media absolutely loves news like this. People have been killing each other for years, using everything from bare hands to nuclear bombs; this is nothing new. If you're hopping on the bandwagon to use these shootings as justification for MORE gun laws, then you're playing into the hysteria like they want you to. Technology, in any form, often carries the risk of misuse, but that's a risk we as a society are willing to accept because we recognize that in the U.S. we have certain freedoms that you simply cannot get anywhere else.

Second, the 2A has absolutely nothing to do with personal defense or hunting -- these are natural rights -- the right expressed in the 2A is one's ability to defend against a tyrannical government. Based on this, there is a very justifiable reason to at least have a fighting shot if you had to go toe-to-toe with the government. If this means having what the media calls "high capacity magazines" (exactly what constitutes "high capacity", anyway?) then so be it.

But keep in mind that criminals, by virtue, do not follow laws. Laws that restrict sales of specific firearms or firearm accessories only impact law-abiding citizens. Criminals will still find ways to cause harm to their victims, and in the absence of, as the media keeps incorrectly putting it, assault rifles with high capacity magazines, they'll find alternative ways such as dirty bombs, IEDs, crossbows, molotov cocktails, you name it.

You think you're high capacity magazine is going to give you a chance if you go 'toe-to-toe with the government'? *lol* If you want to follow the intent the 2nd Amendment then we all should have a musket. I'm not sure the Founding Fathers envisioned assault rifles and the weapons we have today. Do you think they would do the same thing today if they knew about assault weapons and high cap. magazines? I'm a gun owner and I support the 2nd Amendment but we have to use common sense. There's responsibility that goes with rights. We have free speech but can you yell fire in a crowded theater? Assault rifles and high cap. magazines are made for one thing, to kill and kill a lot in a hurry.

[kevinpate]

How many times is a homeowner faced with 3 armed intruders? Id say its very very rare for the non drug dealing types. Plus, a shotgun and a normal14-16 clip 9mm can provide plenty of firepower. Do you actually keep an AR with 100 rounds in it under your bed? That really isnt the best type of defense in close quarters anyways. ...

I'd lay dollars to doughnuts the break-in scenario happens more often than some off balance or off meds putz opening up on the general public with a large capacity clip. Most such events are actually people bringing along extra but normal size clips or multiple firearms. I guess banning those ought to be an even bigger goal since that's the real problem? Nah.

As for the rest, well, as we disagree, and we already know that ... no reason to go further with it.

[Swake2]

First of all, thank you for outing yourself as the kind of person who wants to dictate the freedom of others. It's easy to form such strong opinions about something because the media absolutely loves news like this. People have been killing each other for years, using everything from bare hands to nuclear bombs; this is nothing new. If you're hopping on the bandwagon to use these shootings as justification for MORE gun laws, then you're playing into the hysteria like they want you to. Technology, in any form, often carries the risk of misuse, but that's a risk we as a society are willing to accept because we recognize that in the U.S. we have certain freedoms that you simply cannot get anywhere else.

Second, the 2A has absolutely nothing to do with personal defense or hunting -- these are natural rights -- the right expressed in the 2A is one's ability to defend against a tyrannical government. Based on this, there is a very justifiable reason to at least have a fighting shot if you had to go toe-to-toe with the government. If this means having what the media calls "high capacity magazines" (exactly what constitutes "high capacity", anyway?) then so be it.

But keep in mind that criminals, by virtue, do not follow laws. Laws that restrict sales of specific firearms or firearm accessories only impact law-abiding citizens. Criminals will still find ways to cause harm to their victims, and in the absence of, as the media keeps incorrectly putting it, assault rifles with high capacity magazines, they'll find alternative ways such as dirty bombs, IEDs, crossbows, molotov cocktails, you name it.

So you are fine with personal nukes by your logic.

"defend against a tyrannical government" Really?

[Swake2]

Do I expect folks to carry 100 round clips all the time? nah, that's your strawman hysteria laying out for all to see. Do I think a law abiding citizen who lives in an area of law enforcement poor response time should be limited to a six shooter or a 9-13 shot clip to protect his or her property and life from multiple intruders (each carrying a full clip as well?) Nope, I don't think that makes a whit of sense at all. In fact, I think such a law would be damned irresponsible.

For that matter, if John Q just likes to spend discretionary funds on ammo and firearms instead of cars, and wants to light up his private range, I may not join him,but I think he ought to be able to do so with the same level of freedom my son buys music gear or my other son buys camera gear.

Swake2 also assumes that there is no basis for superior firepower to exist for home defense or hunting. Yet I will suspect if given the choice of a six shooter to face three armed intruders or more firepower, most folks would prefer to not be outgunned in their own hallway.

As for hunting, against a deer, yeah it is overkill. No argument. Against something that can kill ya if you don't put it down, i.e. large boar, mountain lion or even a two legged predator when you're simply out in the woods, I like my position on the matter far better.

Strawman hystyeria? The Colorado shooter specifically had an AR-15 with a 100 round drum magazine.

An AR-15 is a terrible home defense weapon because the thing just sprays bullets and will cut right through people and walls. Trust me, I know. I have literally cut a tree down with an AR-15 before. And faster than a chain saw could have done it.

If you have family in the next room or anywhere in the house you certainly don't want to be shooting an AR-15 in your own home. There were victims in Colorado that were watching the movie in the next theater and that was through a thick sound proofed wall. Any home defense expert will tell you that the best way to defend your home is with an easily accessible and usable handgun loaded with hollow point bullets, not an assault rifle. If you start shooting intruders will run away, hell, if you just say you have a gun they will likely run away. The likelihood of you being invaded by some movie style kill team hell bent on getting to you even if you have a gun is just about zero. Unless of course you have recently kidnapped Liam Neeson's daughter.

I can't really speak to what you are going to do about your fear of bears and Boars, but your fear just might be misplaced there Shooter. Bears on average kill one person a year in the US. Guns kill about 30,000 and most of the victims were the owner of the gun that killed them.

[Roadhawg]

Washington (CNN) - Americans' attitudes toward gun control have remained steady in the wake of the recent shootings in Colorado and Wisconsin, according to a new national poll.

A CNN/ORC International poll released Thursday indicates that the public remains divided on the issue, with 50% saying they favor no restrictions or only minor restrictions on owning guns and 48% supporting major restrictions or a complete ban on gun ownership by individuals except police and other authorized personnel.

Those numbers are identical to where they were in 2011, and the number who support major restrictions or a complete ban has remained in the 48%-to-50% range for more than a decade.

"Not surprisingly, there are gender and ideological gaps on this issue, with more than six in ten women and two thirds of self-described liberals supporting major restrictions or a complete ban, compared to just 34% of men and 36% of self-described conservatives," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. "And major restrictions on guns are most popular in urban areas and in the Northeast than in the rest of the country."

What specific restrictions do Americans favor?

The poll indicates that two meet with almost unanimous approval: Ninety-six percent are in favor of background checks and 91% support laws to prevent convicted felons or people with mental health problems from owning guns.

Three-quarters of people questioned favor gun registration with local governments, and roughly six in ten favor bans on the sale or possession of semi-automatic weapons and high-capacity ammunition clips. But 54% oppose a limit on the number of guns an individual can own, and only one in ten think that all Americans should be prevented from owning guns.

"It's important to note that the numbers on those proposals have also remained essentially unchanged in the wake of the recent shootings," adds Holland.

The CNN poll was conducted by ORC International Tuesday and Wednesday (August 7-8), after Sunday's shootings at a Sikh temple in Wisconsin and after last month's shootings at a movie theater in Colorado.

One-thousand and ten adult Americans were questioned by telephone in the survey. The poll's overall sampling error is plus or minus three percentage points.

[onthestrip]

I'd lay dollars to doughnuts the break-in scenario happens more often than some off balance or off meds putz opening up on the general public with a large capacity clip. Most such events are actually people bringing along extra but normal size clips or multiple firearms. I guess banning those ought to be an even bigger goal since that's the real problem? Nah.

As for the rest, well, as we disagree, and we already know that ... no reason to go further with it.

Not sure of any statisitcs of random homeowners being killed by 3 or more armed intruders at a time but there cant be many. However I do know that there can be many fatalities of innocent people at the hands of just one person with a extended clip. There is simply no reasonable justification for high capacity magazines.

[hrdware]

Three-quarters of people questioned favor gun registration with local governments,...

Three-quarters of people questioned favor violating peoples civil rights. (5th Amendment, self-incrimination).

[Roadhawg]

Not sure of any statisitcs of random homeowners being killed by 3 or more armed intruders at a time but there cant be many. However I do know that there can be many fatalities of innocent people at the hands of just one person with a extended clip. There is simply no reasonable justification for high capacity magazines.

Sure there is... just ask Jesse

[hrdware]

Not sure of any statisitcs of random homeowners being killed by 3 or more armed intruders at a time but there cant be many. However I do know that there can be many fatalities of innocent people at the hands of just one person with a extended clip. There is simply no reasonable justification for high capacity magazines.

There is no justification for cars to go more than 70 mph either but that doesn't stop them from being made and sold.

High cap mags mean I don't have to reload as often, that's my justification. You don't have to accept it or agree with it, but there it is.